The case concerned an applicant who was granted the status of stateless person but was not issued with a permanent residence card. The applicant appealed the decision and took the view that, since he resides in the territory in accordance with the Asylum Act, his application should be regarded in the same way as an applicant for international protection, and therefore is entitled to remain in the territory and to reside there permanently. The applicant referred to the similarity between refugee status and stateless person status, including in international law, and therefore he should be entitled to an official residence permit card under the same conditions as a refugee.

The Supreme Administrative Court noted that the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons does not establish an entitlement to a certain residence status, but that UNHCR recommends granting stateless persons a residence permit valid for at least two years. This is however a recommendation, not a legal provision. In addition, the Supreme Administrative Court agreed with the Prague City Court that in the case of stateless persons, there is no element of the risk of persecution, and therefore the same high form of protection as awarded to refugees was not necessary.

In addition, Article 7(1) of the Convention obliges states to accord stateless persons the same treatment as that accorded to aliens in general, unless the Convention contains more favourable provisions. Consequently, the Court did not uphold the objection that the Act on the Residence of Foreign Nationals does not guarantee sufficient protection for stateless persons and that the procedure leading to the issue of the visa in question does not ensure a minimum standard of aliens.

The Court added that the fact that the applicant was considered as an applicant for international protection during the procedure for applying for the status of stateless person was not relevant for the legal assessment of the applicant’s situation at the end of the procedure. The reason why the applicant’s application was dealt with in accordance Asylum Act is purely practical, in that it was chosen to use that procedure as it was not feasible to create a special procedure in view of the small number of such applications. However, this does not automatically mean that the rights awarded during the procedure will continue to be awarded after the end of it.

Furthermore, stateless people are regarded as foreign nationals under the Act on the Residence of Foreign Nationals, unlike applicants for international protection and persons granted asylum or subsidiary protection, for which an exception is made. Therefore, when dealing with the residence status of stateless persons, it is necessary to proceed in accordance with the Act on the Residence of Foreign Nationals and not in accordance with the Asylum Act. The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal as unfounded.